Political Islam

[ihopehefails]

Political Islam seems to be the new way to describe a religion that has embedded itself into the politics of the middle-east but a similar thing has happened in European history as well.

During the beginning of the 1800s in Europe there was a new religiousity that was being developed by many philosophers that believed that their was a universal spirit that embedded itself in all things and that our own spirit is but a tiny part of this greater whole. This new religious philosophy broke away from Christianity and is similar to Islam because according to Islam God is a universal spirit that is embedded in all things.

Each one of these beliefs are harmless by themselves but when another element is added to them such as politics they become quite dangerous. In Europe the political doctrine on Divine Right of Kings basically said that any form of divinity had the right to power of the state. This is what gave the king authority over the state and this doctrine cemented itself in European thinking for eight hundred years but as the kings were losing power the new divinity that these philosophers were developing gave the collective conscience of man the right to power within the political state. This blended this harmless philosophy and the politics of the state into a single thing where those that had this new collective will were the divine power of the state. Some believe that this is the beginning of totalitarian politics in Europe.

Is a similar thing developing with political Islam (which is separate from Islam itself) where theocracies like Iran have embraced the collective conscience of man that is represented in Ala with the politics of the state. When Islam becomes a theocracy it becomes no different than the combination of the universal spirit of man with divine right of kings that ocurred in Europe.

 

[editec]

Political Islam seems to me to want to move in the opposite direction of the European reformation.

The European reformation denied the authority of the Pope and eventually challenged the authority of the Kings who the Pope had formerly legitimized.

It appears to me that fundamental Islamicists would like to put the Mullahs back in charge of legitimatizing their national leaders, rather similarly to what we currently see in Iran.

The only thing holding this goofy Pan Islamic idea together is the hatred that much of the Islamic world feels toward the West, ya' know.

Islamic empires, much like Europes various empires, were never that monolithic theocratic society that these terrorists seem to want to create now, either.

And if the West disappeared?

Islam would NOT be the unifying principle for PAX Islamia.

People who worship Mohammed are no more unified as a people than Christian Europeans were.

 

[midcan5]

Ihope, where did you hear this or read this? Any sources. The 18th century marks the beginning of the enlightenment and humanism, it criticized the Holy Roman church but Protestantism was as bad and as cruel and backward as the Papacy. They were all political after the collapse of the Roman empire what else could they be. Power resided in the church they owned so much. It wasn't until church and state separated that real progress began. But this battle still goes on as the far right today demonstrates too often.

For a view of the middle ages and religion see:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/World-Lit-Only-Fire-Renaissance/dp/0316545562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258633393&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Age (9780316545563): William Manchester: Books[/ame]


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/0060935642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258633455&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud (9780060935641): Peter Watson: Books[/ame]

 

[ihopehefails]

Ihope, where did you hear this or read this? Any sources. The 18th century marks the beginning of the enlightenment and humanism, it criticized the Holy Roman church but Protestantism was as bad and as cruel and backward as the Papacy. They were all political after the collapse of the Roman empire what else could they be. Power resided in the church they owned so much. It wasn't until church and state separated that real progress began. But this battle still goes on as the far right today demonstrates too often.

For a view of the middle ages and religion see:

Amazon.com: A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Age (9780316545563): William Manchester: Books


Amazon.com: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud (9780060935641): Peter Watson: Books

Did I actually say that they were trying to create a new christian church. In fact, they hated christians because christianity was to "individualistic" because they believed that the true god existed in a universal spirit that we are all a part of (pantheism). It sounds corny but when you have most everyone believing that the king's divinity gave him a right to state power then this new universal conscience of man quickly became the recognized power among those Europeans.

Is it similar to the political forces that shaped political islam?

 

[ihopehefails]

Political Islam seems to me to want to move in the opposite direction of the European reformation.

The European reformation denied the authority of the Pope and eventually challenged the authority of the Kings who the Pope had formerly legitimized.

It appears to me that fundamental Islamicists would like to put the Mullahs back in charge of legitimatizing their national leaders, rather similarly to what we currently see in Iran.

The only thing holding this goofy Pan Islamic idea together is the hatred that much of the Islamic world feels toward the West, ya' know.

Islamic empires, much like Europes various empires, were never that monolithic theocratic society that these terrorists seem to want to create now, either.

And if the West disappeared?

Islam would NOT be the unifying principle for PAX Islamia.

People who worship Mohammed are no more unified as a people than Christian Europeans were.

Nowhere did I mention Christians in my post nor did I say that these philosophers were advocating for Christianity so none of your theories about the pope putting kings in power hold up.

I did say that these people were creating a civic religion that believed in the unity of man which is a nice idea but what happens when religion or any religious idea gives one authority over the state. The new religion takes hold and this new religion believed that the unity of man was essential and state preserved this unity at all cost.

 

[ihopehefails]

Political Islam seems to me to want to move in the opposite direction of the European reformation.

The European reformation denied the authority of the Pope and eventually challenged the authority of the Kings who the Pope had formerly legitimized.

It appears to me that fundamental Islamicists would like to put the Mullahs back in charge of legitimatizing their national leaders, rather similarly to what we currently see in Iran.

The only thing holding this goofy Pan Islamic idea together is the hatred that much of the Islamic world feels toward the West, ya' know.

Islamic empires, much like Europes various empires, were never that monolithic theocratic society that these terrorists seem to want to create now, either.

And if the West disappeared?

Islam would NOT be the unifying principle for PAX Islamia.

People who worship Mohammed are no more unified as a people than Christian Europeans were.

Do you have pshychological problems dealing with low self-esteem because when other people hate me I usually don't blame myself unless I did something wrong to deserve it.

They don't worship mohammed BTW.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There is no political Islam.
Islam is political, it has it own legal economic and societal system that muslims are required to try to make dominant with the jihad.

 

[ihopehefails]

There is no political Islam.
Islam is political, it has it own legal economic and societal system that muslims are required to try to make dominant with the jihad.

I was trying to make a point that whenever you have this kind of religious thinking that believes it has the absolute right to state power then you create totalitarianism. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying because a lot of islamic radicals really scare the shit our of me.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Fundamental Islam not radical, Islam tells other religions how to act and what muslims are to do to those who do not agree.
Islam is a totalitarian hate group .A street gang.

 

[Sunni Man]

Fundamental Islam not radical, Islam tells other religions how to act and what muslims are to do to those who do not agree.
Islam is a totalitarian hate group .A street gang.

Islam is a street gang?!?!

Mr Fitnuts you are a total loon

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You should not be frightened of Islam The more you know, the more ridiculous it is.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 163(a):
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

That the Prophet said, "My livelihood is under the shade of my spear (from war booty), and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying the Jizya.

 

[Sunni Man]

You should not be frightened of Islam The more you know, the more ridicules it is.

The more "ridicules" it is

The only thing that is ridiculous is you Mr Fitnuts

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Thanks I made you a more fitting avatar

 

[Sunni Man]

Thanks I made you a more fitting avatar

Nice

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Thanks I made you a more fitting avatar

Nice

No problem.